This changed recently in MI, before we had a team just for homeschoolers. A coworker of mine homeschooled her kids and they both played on that team, then her son asked to go to public school. Mom set it up and the big shock the kid got was how the public school kids were the rudest teens he ever met. He had went from a team with great sportsmanship and players that actually listened to the coach to a team of brats. Now you can simply have your kid try-out with the nearest school as oppose to enrolling. With the k12 program, the state is already getting the federal funds for your kid. Which I am sure the money is why Virginia has a problem with homeschoolers joining their team ranks. Otherwise they may have to charge students to play. Which pay-to-play isn't new to some parts of MI as well.

Why our sports programs in the United States so tightly intertwined with schools? Even though the university level they're combined. Can't cities and towns sponsor teams and let schools stick to education?

Derwood:The home school families are still paying school taxes, so why not let them participate?

Seems petty

In other threads on the subject I've been told that school sports are paid entirely by booster clubs. If this is true, why would being a taxpayer make a difference? And if it is not true, why are education dollars being spent on sports?

EngineerAU:Why our sports programs in the United States so tightly intertwined with schools? Even though the university level they're combined. Can't cities and towns sponsor teams and let schools stick to education?

They do, in a lot of places. My town has a booming youth soccer league that's not school-affiliated.

If the family pays property taxes in the district they seek to play in, their kids should be allowed to play. Paying any associated fees, of course. The opposition to this smacks of a general anti-homeschooling bias.

Ow! That was my feelings!:If the family pays property taxes in the district they seek to play in, their kids should be allowed to play. Paying any associated fees, of course. The opposition to this smacks of a general anti-homeschooling bias.

I am trying to figure who thinks this is a good idea: people who want to seclude themselves from the rest of the world with the exception of playing sports? It appears like the cross of the most intellectually incurious one percent of people in our society. Why the hell would we spend time deciding to look after their interests?

angryjd:I am trying to figure who thinks this is a good idea: people who want to seclude themselves from the rest of the world with the exception of playing sports? It appears like the cross of the most intellectually incurious one percent of people in our society. Why the hell would we spend time deciding to look after their interests?

Home schooling isn't just about religion. It's also about getting a better education than what can be gained from the local government schools, especially if you live in a bad neighborhood. That has nothing to do with sports, however, and as has been pointed out, they're paying taxes too.

My own experiences with co-workers who were homeschooling their kids almost always seemed to involve avoidance of racial minorities or liberal ideology (and usually both). Most seemed like nice enough people who had a very restricted world view.

As an atheist who intends on homeschooling next year, I am getting a big kick out of these replies... There are many other reasons to homeschool besides religion. As a former teacher, I plan on homeschooling because the schools in my town are failing and I know that school is mostly a waste of time. That doesn't mean I am going to keep my kids locked in the house however. My one daughter has already gone to swimming and gymnastics classes and she currently attends a private preschool.

If these kids want to be on the team, why shouldn't they be allowed to try out?

Let's remove all the competitive sports from our public schools and relegate them to special schools where all they do is sports and other athletic activities. No academics whatsoever-- Just sports.

We take the kids who are going to public school just to aim for a sports scholarship, and we stick them in the sports school, where they can play football, wrestle, cheer, or play other sports without all that messy learning to get in their way. They can put 100% of their efforts toward getting that scholarship to a sports college where they can be scouted and eventually make some sort of career out of their sports focus.

This has the added effect of getting all the stupid jocks out of the regular schools so that they aren't distracting students who actually want to learn something. It stops public schools from being tempted to pass total idiots through the system just because they're on the sports teams. It cuts down on bullying, I'm sure, because the jocks tend to also be the bullies. It cuts down on date-rape in the public schools, since-- again-- the jocks tend to be the ones who do this sort of thing (oh, come on. You know it's true.)

We get the disruptive jocks out of the academic system and get to focus on education, while the jocks get the benefit of not being bothered by having to learn anything that doesn't pertain to their sports of choice. Why should a guy whose sole career goal is playing football be concerned with algebra or creative writing? Even if he ends up as a sports announcer or sports radio DJ, he'll have the necessary skills for his audience without that academic stuff getting in the way of his game.

Public schools could actually spend some money on other extracurricular activities, instead of funneling every extra dollar into the sports programs. The other kids would get decent programs for a change.

I remember when I was in high school, the school board actually voted two years in a row for the music boosters to divert a large portion of their funds to the football program, because the football team needed new jerseys and a new scoreboard. How nice it would have been for the music programs to get the equipment they needed!

I used to live in a town where they put most of their focus on the jazz music program, and very little focus on their sports teams. It was strange to see, but their jazz band was a huge draw for the school. The concerts they held were attended by people who didn't even have kids in the school. The money they made on ticket sales was significant. Students were scouted by universities and the military for their music programs. It was a whole different world, and the coolest thing was that the students who participated in the music program were also doing well in all their other classes. Nobody passed a kid just so he could be in the band. The students, being in an environment where sports was not at the top of the food chain, were driven to succeed in their classes because they wanted to, and because they weren't watching drooling idiots on the sports teams getting passed through classes without doing anything.

I have nothing against kids playing sports. I just see no reason why sports should be taught in a place where we send kids to get an education. It should be something that is separate from school. If people want their kid to be an athlete, then they should have to send them to a school that is for sports and sports alone. No public school should be taking a penny out of their budget for sports.

Yes, have a P.E. class. Teach them general fitness, exercise, and personal hygiene. Teach them about their body's health and how to maintain it. Leave sports as an activity that occurs outside the school, without school funds, and without it impacting students who do not participate in sports.

This whole idea that sports belong in public schools is an old-fashioned, outdated, foolish notion that does nothing but make generation after generation produce hordes of uneducated idiots. It's time to separate sports from education. They have no reason to be paired together.

Fuggin Bizzy:Ow! That was my feelings!: If the family pays property taxes in the district they seek to play in, their kids should be allowed to play. Paying any associated fees, of course. The opposition to this smacks of a general anti-homeschooling bias.

helpwerebeingoppressed.jpg

Yes, because if there's anything that can be learned from this thread, it's that there certainly is not any bias against people who home school. Nope, not a bit.

I work with kids. The home-school kids are certainly more educated, in the sense of book-learning. However, they are SO very incapable of socialization, they might as well be engineers. It's actually kinda spooky. I don't however, want to build a "sports" school, since all of the guys are going to wind up being sociopaths of a different order...like the NFL, NBA, etc.

An anecdote: An acquaintance of mine once ran the carnival business in the lower SE. He also ran the midget wrestling league. He kept them in their trailer. "Ya caint let em out", he said, "cuz they just go to a bar, git drunk, and gang up on somebody. What you do is open the trailer door, throw in some Veeny Weenies, and let em eat. Otherwise you got a mess on your hands, and no show!"

Who'stheBossisNotaFood:As an atheist who intends on homeschooling next year, I am getting a big kick out of these replies... There are many other reasons to homeschool besides religion. As a former teacher, I plan on homeschooling because the schools in my town are failing and I know that school is mostly a waste of time. That doesn't mean I am going to keep my kids locked in the house however. My one daughter has already gone to swimming and gymnastics classes and she currently attends a private preschool.

If these kids want to be on the team, why shouldn't they be allowed to try out?

As was mentioned earlier, I attended public school, I failed a class my first semester my senior year over attendance. As a result I was not allowed to run track in the spring. Sooooo...why should your kid be allowed to try out? How can you prove he passed YOUR first semester? If you want your damn kids on the team, let them go to that school.